Science learning in the outdoors to support primary-secondary transition

This study provides additional insight into how outdoor learning can be used as a vehicle to address transition issues. This study analyses the benefits of outdoor learning through the use of shared learning days with young people in the primary-secondary transition phase. This paper argues that a carefully designed programme of outdoor ‘shared learning days’ with young people in both phases working together is a sound model to help address the recommendations arising from specific transition issues (Mullan, 2014; Rose, 2009) through the delivery of aligned outcomes (cognitive, affective, interpersonal/social and physical/behavioural) and impact from learning science outdoors (Rickinson et al., 2004).

ARB: Phase II window of opportunity study of short-term preoperative treatment with enzalutamide in ER-positive and triple-negative breast cancer

The androgen receptor (AR) is expressed in 60-80% of breast cancers (BC) across all molecular phenotypes, with a higher incidence in oestrogen receptor positive (ER+) BC compared to ER negative tumours. In ER+ disease, AR-expression has been linked to endocrine resistance which might be reversed with combined treatment targeting ER and AR. In triple negative BCs (TNBC), preclinical and clinical investigations have described a subset of patients that express the AR and are sensitive to androgen blockade, providing a novel therapeutic target. Enzalutamide, a potent 2nd generation anti-androgen, has demonstrated substantial preclinical and clinical anti-tumour activity in AR+ breast cancer. Short-term preoperative window of opportunity studies are a validated strategy for novel treatments to provide proof-of-concept and define the most appropriate patient population by directly assessing treatment effects in tumour tissue before and after treatment. The ARB study aims to assess the anti-tumour effects of enzalutamide in early ER+ breast cancer and TNBC, to identify the optimal target population for further studies and to directly explore the biologic effects of enzalutamide on BC and stromal cells. Methods: ARB is an international, investigator sponsored WOO phase II study in women with newly diagnosed primary ER+ BC or AR+ TNBC of ≥ 1cm. The study has two cohorts. In the ER+ cohort, postmenopausal patients will be randomised 2:1 to receive either enzalutamide (160mg OD) plus exemestane (50mg OD) or exemestane (25mg OD). In the TNBC cohort, AR+ will receive single agent treatment with enzalutamide (160mg OD). Study treatment is planned for 15–29 days, followed by surgery or neo-adjuvant therapy. Tissue and blood samples are collected before treatment and on the last day of study treatment. The primary endpoint is inhibition of tumour-cell proliferation, as measured by change in Ki67 expression, determined centrally by 2 investigators. Secondary endpoints include induction of apoptosis (Caspase3), circulating hormone levels and safety. ARB aims to recruit ≈235 patients from ≈40 sites in the UK, Germany, Spain and USA. The study is open to recruitment.

A process evaluation of a cluster randomised trial to reduce potentially inappropriate prescribing in older people in primary care (OPTI-SCRIPT study)

Background
The OPTI-SCRIPT cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) found that a three-phase multifaceted intervention including academic detailing with a pharmacist, GP-led medicines reviews, supported by web-based pharmaceutical treatment algorithms, and tailored patient information leaflets, was effective in reducing potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) in Irish primary care. We report a process evaluation exploring the implementation of the intervention, the experiences of those participating in the study and lessons for future implementation.

Methods
The OPTI-SCRIPT trial included 21 GP practices and 196 patients. The process evaluation used mixed methods. Quantitative data were collected from all GP practices and semi-structured interviews were conducted with GPs from intervention and control groups, and a purposive sample of patients from the intervention group. All interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using a thematic analysis.

Results
Despite receiving a standardised academic detailing session, intervention delivery varied among GP practices. Just over 70 % of practices completed medicines review as recommended with the patient present. Only single-handed practices conducted reviews without patients present, highlighting the influence of practice characteristics and resources on variation. Medications were more likely to be completely stopped or switched to another more appropriate medication when reviews were conducted with patients present. The patient information leaflets were not used by any of the intervention practices. Both GP (32 %) and patient (40 %) recruitment rates were modest. For those who did participate, overall, the experience was positively viewed, with GPs and patients referring to the value of medication reviews to improve prescribing and reduce unnecessary medications. Lack of time in busy GP practices and remuneration were identified as organisational barriers to future implementation.

Conclusions
The OPTI-SCRIPT intervention was positively viewed by both GPs and patients, both of whom valued the study’s objectives. Patient information leaflets were not a successful component of the intervention. Academic detailing and medication reviews are important components in changing PIP, and having patients present during the review process seems to be a more effective approach for decreasing PIP.

HER2 in high-risk rectal cancer patients treated in EXPERT-C, a randomized phase II trial of neoadjuvant capecitabine and oxaliplatin (CAPOX) and chemoradiotherapy (CRT) with or without cetuximab.

BACKGROUND: HER2 is an established therapeutic target in breast and gastric cancers. The role of HER2 in rectal cancer is unclear, as conflicting data on the prevalence of HER2 expression in this disease have been reported. We evaluated the prevalence of HER2 and its impact on the outcome of high-risk rectal cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant CAPOX and CRT±cetuximab in the EXPERT-C trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients with available tumour tissue for HER2 analysis were included. HER2 expression was determined by immunohistochemistry (IHC) in pre-treatment biopsies and/or surgical specimens (score 0-3+). Immunostaining was scored according to the consensus panel recommendations on HER2 scoring for gastric cancer. Tumours with equivocal IHC result (2+) were tested for HER2 amplification by D-ISH. Tumours with IHC 3+ or D-ISH ratio ≥2.0 were classified as HER2+. The impact of HER2 on primary and secondary end points of the study was analysed. RESULTS: Of 164 eligible study patients, 104 (63%) biopsy and 114 (69%) surgical specimens were available for analysis. Only 3 of 104 (2.9%) and 3 of 114 (2.6%) were HER2+, respectively. In 77 patients with paired specimens, concordance for HER2 status was found in 74 (96%). Overall, 141 patients were assessable for HER2 and 6 out of 141 (4.3%) had HER2 overexpression and/or amplification. The median follow-up was 58.6 months. HER2 was not associated with a difference in the outcome for any of the study end points, including in the subset of 90 KRAS/BRAF wild-type patients treated±cetuximab. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the low prevalence of expression as recorded in the EXPERT-C trial, HER2 does not appear to represent a useful therapeutic target in high-risk rectal cancer. However, the role of HER2 as a potential predictive biomarker of resistance to anti-EGFR-based treatments and a therapeutic target in anti-EGFR refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) warrants further investigation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Register: 99828560.

Epirubicin, oxaliplatin, and capecitabine with or without panitumumab for patients with previously untreated advanced oesophagogastric cancer (REAL3): a randomised, open-label phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: EGFR overexpression occurs in 27-55% of oesophagogastric adenocarcinomas, and correlates with poor prognosis. We aimed to assess addition of the anti-EGFR antibody panitumumab to epirubicin, oxaliplatin, and capecitabine (EOC) in patients with advanced oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma. METHODS: In this randomised, open-label phase 3 trial (REAL3), we enrolled patients with untreated, metastatic, or locally advanced oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma at 63 centres (tertiary referral centres, teaching hospitals, and district general hospitals) in the UK. Eligible patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive up to eight 21-day cycles of open-label EOC (epirubicin 50 mg/m(2) and oxaliplatin 130 mg/m(2) on day 1 and capecitabine 1250 mg/m(2) per day on days 1-21) or modified-dose EOC plus panitumumab (mEOC+P; epirubicin 50 mg/m(2) and oxaliplatin 100 mg/m(2) on day 1, capecitabine 1000 mg/m(2) per day on days 1-21, and panitumumab 9 mg/kg on day 1). Randomisation was blocked and stratified for centre region, extent of disease, and performance status. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. We assessed safety in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. After a preplanned independent data monitoring committee review in October, 2011, trial recruitment was halted and panitumumab withdrawn. Data for patients on treatment were censored at this timepoint. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00824785. FINDINGS: Between June 2, 2008, and Oct 17, 2011, we enrolled 553 eligible patients. Median overall survival in 275 patients allocated EOC was 11.3 months (95% CI 9.6-13.0) compared with 8.8 months (7.7-9.8) in 278 patients allocated mEOC+P (hazard ratio [HR] 1.37, 95% CI 1.07-1.76; p=0.013). mEOC+P was associated with increased incidence of grade 3-4 diarrhoea (48 [17%] of 276 patients allocated mEOC+P vs 29 [11%] of 266 patients allocated EOC), rash (29 [11%] vs two [1%]), mucositis (14 [5%] vs none), and hypomagnesaemia (13 [5%] vs none) but reduced incidence of haematological toxicity (grade ≥ 3 neutropenia 35 [13%] vs 74 [28%]). INTERPRETATION: Addition of panitumumab to EOC chemotherapy does not increase overall survival and cannot be recommended for use in an unselected population with advanced oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma. FUNDING: Amgen, UK National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre.

Multicenter randomized phase II clinical trial comparing neoadjuvant oxaliplatin, capecitabine, and preoperative radiotherapy with or without cetuximab followed by total mesorectal excision in patients with high-risk rectal cancer (EXPERT-C).

PURPOSE: To evaluate the addition of cetuximab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy before chemoradiotherapy in high-risk rectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with operable magnetic resonance imaging-defined high-risk rectal cancer received four cycles of capecitabine/oxaliplatin (CAPOX) followed by capecitabine chemoradiotherapy, surgery, and adjuvant CAPOX (four cycles) or the same regimen plus weekly cetuximab (CAPOX+C). The primary end point was complete response (CR; pathologic CR or, in patients not undergoing surgery, radiologic CR) in patients with KRAS/BRAF wild-type tumors. Secondary end points were radiologic response (RR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety in the wild-type and overall populations and a molecular biomarker analysis. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-five eligible patients were randomly assigned. Ninety (60%) of 149 assessable tumors were KRAS or BRAF wild type (CAPOX, n = 44; CAPOX+C, n = 46), and in these patients, the addition of cetuximab did not improve the primary end point of CR (9% v 11%, respectively; P = 1.0; odds ratio, 1.22) or PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.65; P = .363). Cetuximab significantly improved RR (CAPOX v CAPOX+C: after chemotherapy, 51% v 71%, respectively; P = .038; after chemoradiation, 75% v 93%, respectively; P = .028) and OS (HR, 0.27; P = .034). Skin toxicity and diarrhea were more frequent in the CAPOX+C arm. CONCLUSION: Cetuximab led to a significant increase in RR and OS in patients with KRAS/BRAF wild-type rectal cancer, but the primary end point of improved CR was not met.

Radium-223 and concomitant therapies in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: an international, early access, open-label, single-arm phase 3b trial

BACKGROUND: In the previously reported ALSYMPCA trial in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer and symptomatic bone metastases, overall survival was significantly longer in patients treated with radium-223 dichloride (radium-223) than in patients treated with placebo. In this study, we investigated safety and overall survival in radium-223 treated patients in an early access programme done after the ALSYMPCA study and before regulatory approval of radium-223.

METHODS: We did an international, prospective, interventional, open-label, single-arm, phase 3b study. Enrolled patients were aged 18 years or older with histologically or cytologically confirmed progressive bone-predominant metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with two or more skeletal metastases on imaging (with no restriction as to whether they were symptomatic or asymptomatic; without visceral disease but lymph node metastases were allowed). Patients received intravenous injections of radium-223, 50 kBq/kg (current recommendation 55 kBq/kg after implementation of National Institute of Standards and Technology update on April 18, 2016) every 4 weeks for up to six injections. Other concomitant anticancer therapies were allowed. Primary endpoints were safety and overall survival. The safety and efficacy analyses were done on all patients who received at least one dose of the study drug. The study has been completed, and we report the final analysis here. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01618370, and the European Union Clinical Trials Register, EudraCT number 2012-000075-16.

FINDINGS: Between July 22, 2012, and Dec 19, 2013, 839 patients were enrolled from 113 sites in 14 countries. 696 patients received one or more doses of radium-223; 403 (58%) of these patients had all six planned injections. Any-grade treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 523 (75%) of 696 patients; any-grade treatment-emergent adverse events deemed to be related to treatment were reported in 281 (40%) patients. The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse events were anaemia in 32 (5%) patients, thrombocytopenia in 15 (2%) patients, neutropenia in ten (1%) patients, and leucopenia in nine (1%) patients. Any grade of serious adverse events were reported in 243 (35%) patients. Median follow-up was 7·5 months (IQR 5-11) and 210 deaths were reported; median overall survival was 16 months (95% CI 13-not available [NA]). In an exploratory analysis of overall survival with predefined factors, median overall survival was longer for: patients with baseline alkaline phosphatase concentration less than the upper limit of normal (ULN; median NA, 95% CI 16 months-NA) than for patients with an alkaline phosphatase concentration equal to or greater than the ULN (median 12 months, 11-15); patients with baseline haemoglobin levels 10 g/dL or greater (median 17 months, 14-NA) than for patients with haemoglobin levels less than 10 g/dL (median 10 months, 8-14); patients with a baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) of 0 (median NA, 17 months-NA) than for patients with an ECOG PS of 1 (median 13 months, 11-NA) or an ECOG PS of 2 or more (median 7 months, 5-11); and for patients with no reported baseline pain (median NA, 16 months-NA) than for those with mild pain (median 14 months, 13-NA) or moderate-severe pain (median 11 months, 9-13). Median overall survival was also longer in patients who received radium-223 plus abiraterone, enzalutamide, or both (median NA, 95% CI 16 months-NA) than in those who did not receive these agents (median 13 months, 12-16), and in patients who received radium-223 plus denosumab (median NA, 15 months-NA) than in patients who received radium-223 without denosumab (median 13 months, 12-NA).

INTERPRETATION: Our findings show that radium-223 can be safely combined with abiraterone or enzalutamide, which are now both part of the standard of care for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Furthermore, our findings extend to patients who were asymptomatic at baseline, unlike those enrolled in the pivotal ALSYMPCA study. The findings of prolonged survival in patients treated with concomitant abiraterone, enzalutamide, or denosumab require confirmation in prospective randomised trials.

FUNDING: Pharmaceutical Division of Bayer.

Efficacy and Safety of Radium-223 Dichloride in Symptomatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer Patients With or Without Baseline Opioid Use From the Phase 3 ALSYMPCA Trial

Background: The phase 3 ALSYMPCA trial enrolled metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients with or without baseline opioid use.

Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of radium-223 dichloride (radium-223) versus placebo in ALSYMPCA patients by baseline opioid use.

Design, setting, and participants: Nine hundred and twenty one patients enrolled at 136 centers globally.

Intervention: Radium-223 (50 kBq/kg, intravenous injection) every 4 wk for six cycles or matching placebo, each plus best standard of care.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Primary endpoint (overall survival [OS]), main secondary efficacy endpoints, and safety were evaluated by baseline opioid use. Additional analyses included time to first opioid use, time to first external beam radiation therapy for bone pain, and safety of concomitant external beam radiation therapy.

Results and limitations: At baseline, 408 (44%) patients had no pain and no analgesic use or mild pain with nonopioid therapy (World Health Organization ladder pain score 0–1 [nonopioid subgroup]), and 513 (56%) had moderate pain with occasional opioids or severe pain with regular daily opioids (World Health Organization ladder pain score 2–3 [opioid subgroup]). Radium-223 significantly prolonged OS versus placebo in nonopioid (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.52–0.93; p = 0.013) and opioid (HR = 0.68; 95% CI: 0.54–0.86; p = 0.001) subgroups, and significantly reduced risk of symptomatic skeletal events versus placebo, regardless of baseline opioid use (nonopioid subgroup: HR = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.39–0.82, p = 0.002; opioid subgroup: HR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.53–0.98, p = 0.038). Time to first opioid use for bone pain was significantly delayed with radium-223 versus placebo (HR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.46–0.85,p = 0.002). Adverse event incidences were similar between opioid subgroups.

Conclusions: Radium-223 versus placebo significantly prolonged OS and reduced symptomatic skeletal event risk with a favorable safety profile in castration-resistant prostate cancer patients with symptomatic bone metastases, regardless of baseline opioid use.

Patient summary: In this ALSYMPCA opioid subgroup analysis, baseline symptom levels did not appear to impact radium-223 dichloride efficacy or safety.

Conventional versus hypofractionated high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: 5-year outcomes of the randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 CHHiP trial

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer might have high radiation-fraction sensitivity that would give a therapeutic advantage to hypofractionated treatment. We present a pre-planned analysis of the efficacy and side-effects of a randomised trial comparing conventional and hypofractionated radiotherapy after 5 years follow-up.

METHODS: CHHiP is a randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial that recruited men with localised prostate cancer (pT1b-T3aN0M0). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to conventional (74 Gy delivered in 37 fractions over 7·4 weeks) or one of two hypofractionated schedules (60 Gy in 20 fractions over 4 weeks or 57 Gy in 19 fractions over 3·8 weeks) all delivered with intensity-modulated techniques. Most patients were given radiotherapy with 3-6 months of neoadjuvant and concurrent androgen suppression. Randomisation was by computer-generated random permuted blocks, stratified by National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk group and radiotherapy treatment centre, and treatment allocation was not masked. The primary endpoint was time to biochemical or clinical failure; the critical hazard ratio (HR) for non-inferiority was 1·208. Analysis was by intention to treat. Long-term follow-up continues. The CHHiP trial is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN97182923.

FINDINGS: Between Oct 18, 2002, and June 17, 2011, 3216 men were enrolled from 71 centres and randomly assigned (74 Gy group, 1065 patients; 60 Gy group, 1074 patients; 57 Gy group, 1077 patients). Median follow-up was 62·4 months (IQR 53·9-77·0). The proportion of patients who were biochemical or clinical failure free at 5 years was 88·3% (95% CI 86·0-90·2) in the 74 Gy group, 90·6% (88·5-92·3) in the 60 Gy group, and 85·9% (83·4-88·0) in the 57 Gy group. 60 Gy was non-inferior to 74 Gy (HR 0·84 [90% CI 0·68-1·03], pNI=0·0018) but non-inferiority could not be claimed for 57 Gy compared with 74 Gy (HR 1·20 [0·99-1·46], pNI=0·48). Long-term side-effects were similar in the hypofractionated groups compared with the conventional group. There were no significant differences in either the proportion or cumulative incidence of side-effects 5 years after treatment using three clinician-reported as well as patient-reported outcome measures. The estimated cumulative 5 year incidence of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) grade 2 or worse bowel and bladder adverse events was 13·7% (111 events) and 9·1% (66 events) in the 74 Gy group, 11·9% (105 events) and 11·7% (88 events) in the 60 Gy group, 11·3% (95 events) and 6·6% (57 events) in the 57 Gy group, respectively. No treatment-related deaths were reported.

INTERPRETATION: Hypofractionated radiotherapy using 60 Gy in 20 fractions is non-inferior to conventional fractionation using 74 Gy in 37 fractions and is recommended as a new standard of care for external-beam radiotherapy of localised prostate cancer.

FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Department of Health, and the National Institute for Health Research Cancer Research Network.

A Phase II Biomarker-Embedded Study of Lapatinib plus Capecitabine as First-line Therapy in Patients with Advanced or Metastatic Gastric Cancer

An exploratory phase II biomarker-embedded trial (LPT109747; NCT00526669) designed to determine the association of lapatinib-induced fluoropyrimidine gene changes with efficacy of lapatinib plus capecitabine as first-line treatment for advanced gastric cancer or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma independent of tumor HER2 status. Tumor biopsies obtained before and after 7-day lapatinib (1,250 mg) to analyze changes in gene expression, followed by a 14-day course of capecitabine (1,000 mg/m(2) twice daily, 14/21 days) plus lapatinib 1,250 mg daily. Blood samples were acquired for pharmacokinetic analysis. Primary clinical objectives were response rate (RR) and 5-month progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary objectives were overall survival (OS), PFS, time to response, duration of response, toxicity, and identification of associations between lapatinib pharmacokinetics and biomarker endpoints. Primary biomarker objectives were modulation of 5-FU-pathway genes by lapatinib, effects of germline SNPs on treatment outcome, and trough steady-state plasma lapatinib concentrations. Sixty-eight patients were enrolled; (75% gastric cancer, 25% gastroesophageal junction). Twelve patients (17.9%) had confirmed partial response, 31 (46.3%) had stable disease, and 16 (23.9%) had progressive disease. Median PFS and OS were 3.3 and 6.3 months, respectively. Frequent adverse events included diarrhea (45%), decreased appetite (39%), nausea (36%), and fatigue (36%). Lapatinib induced no changes in gene expression from baseline and no significant associations were found for SNPs analyzed. Elevated baseline HER3 mRNA expression was associated with a higher RR (33% vs. 0%; P = 0.008). Lapatinib plus capecitabine was well tolerated, demonstrating modest antitumor activity in patients with advanced gastric cancer. The association of elevated HER3 and RR warrants further investigation as an important player for HER-targeted regimens in combination with capecitabine